First Nikon AF-S 58mm f/1.4G lens sample images

David Charlesworth (www.davidiam.com) sent me few sample images taken with the just released Nikon 58mm f/1.4G lens ($1,696.95) and several comparisons with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G lens ($216.95). You can find all full resolution photos in this Flickr set. I wanted to get the images out ASAP and did not have time to group and label them properly - you will have to look at the EXIF data for more information. I will have more detailed testing and comparisons with the Zeiss OTUS 55mm f/1.4 APO Distagon T* ZF.2 lens once I receive them in the next two-three weeks.

Here are few words from David:

"First impressions: its lighter than I imagined, but balances like a dream on the D800. Holding just the lens, its very "mount" heavy. A lot of empty plastic out the front. It almost wants to tilt out of your hand when you're holding it. Focus ring is perfectly located and smooth as silk. Lens is made in Japan, the hood in China. Autofocus speed is acceptable, won't win any competitions. Shot a number of single focus and continuous focus samples. Seemed to lock quickly in low light and keep up nicely with continuous AF. The first sample files are shot handheld, then toward the end I did more comparison shots from a tripod, mirror-up, etc. It was dark when I started, so the shots are more limited than I wanted, but should give some people something to start with."

Very plastic. Tough, but its a heck of a lot lighter than you’d think. It’s big in volume, which makes you think it’ll be heavy, but its not.

Jon McGuffin

Would you say it’s about the same size/weight as the 85mm 1.8G?

robert

from what I can tell the 85 and 58 are about the same width but the 85 is just a little longer.

robert

exactly the way me and my friend who bought the 50 1.4/85 1.8 g’s felt. it looks impressive, then you hold it and smile and say “thats it?” not the metal finish like the 24-70/70-200VR2 have. its even rougher those those zooms. but it does look the part. very deceiving.

mikeswitz

You have a friend? C’mon.

MK

since it’s plastic AGAIN for such a premium lens, i don’t even want to look at how it performs anymore. it’s already failed….seems to me nikon wants to cut corners but why not make all the camera bodies in plastic?? Sigma Art wins.

Magnus

Sure it’s plastic again. Being an engineer in the plastics field, I know the difference between plastics and plastics. These are high quality hoods that made of high quality, impact resistant raw materials, that don’t become brittle in sunlight or by aging (like poor materials might do) and don’t get their surface damaged by hand sweat. Plastic hood also absorb impacts when the lens is accidentally hit against something, which minimizes the risk of damaging or moving the optics. Furthermore, they’re far lighter than their metal equivalents.

I’m way more concerned about the metal hoods on my old AI/AI-S lenses. I hope Nikon doesn’t swich back to using metal hoods again. They might feel better, but they really aren’t.

Of course plastics are not good in all applications, but in some cases they’re really the best choice when speaking of quality. You might not like that, but that’s how it is. In other parts, metal is by far superior. A good engineer knows which material is best for a certain application.

Nick

Thank You! What all these “it’s not metal” people don’t get is that the way these are made is extremely durable. It may not feel that way, but with a lens hood on I am quite confident in the non metal build. Like I mentioned above I threw my 50mm 1.4G across the room when changing the lens and it survived the journey. I feel like my 24-70 or my old 85mm 1.8D would have been dead from that drop.

KnightPhoto

could you please design some eavestrough Christmas light hangers then that don’t turn brittle and snap into pieces after 3 years 😉

I swear there is a market out there.

Ken Elliott

I’m under the impression that is is a metal frame covered in a impact-resistant plastic. This is a very good thing. The plastic acts as a protective bumper, and is better in very hot or cold conditions. And it is cheaper to replace plastic than metal if the lens gets a bit beat up.

The problem with all-metal lenses is the thickness of the metal. Too thick and you have a heavy lens. Too thin and it dents easily. A pro cannot earn a living with a dented lens that causes the focus ring to stick, so they tend to be very heavy. This is a much better design.

I have much more faith in Nikon’s engineering team than the commenters on this forum.

saywhatuwill

Looking at the samples on Flickr the lens looks like a total winner. The night shots were much better than what Nikon shot. Maybe they tweaked the lens between the Nikon sample and the release of the lens. Thanks for samples!

neversink

I agree. I am very impressed by the samples. I only wish David could have compared it with the old Noct. It looks a bit better than my Noct images, but then again I haven’t used that lens in quite awhile.
Compared with the 50 f/1.8 I see better bokeh, more contrast, less flair and of course little coma, if any. Hard to tell on some of the images about bokeh and coma because they are hand held, but I am satisfied. But the even the images stopped down on the 58 look better than the comparison images on the 50. I would expect this to be the case wide open, but am pleasantly surprised at the comparisons stopped down.
When I get back to the states, this is one lens I will definitely test.

babola

And I would add – better and sharper corners even at f/1.4 compared with 50 shot at f/1.8.

Ming has received his sample, hope to read his expert opinion soon.

neversink

Yes – And I am thinking even sharper than the old NOCT in the corners, but from these samples it is hard to fairly judge. All of my NOCT photos were taken on film cameras.

neversink

And please don’t compare blur due to shake with coma. These were handheld shots.

Yannick

at this price, being an f1.4 and not a f1.2, this lens MUST be sharp as a knife … it must compete against the latest Zeiss in terms of IQ (the lack of AF on the Zeiss lenses is a big turnoff for me especially with a D800)

These are images taken in a shop, in artificial lighting. They are fast images that aren’t taken at typically great locations. This lens in David’s hands at a wedding or a portrait session with his processing and lighting techniques and eye… will be stunning.

Bret M

Yeah but those same techniques and processing will make the 50 1.8G or 50 1.4G look 99.9% as good as this lens. I don’t really see the point of this one, unless it was going to be 1.2 or 1.0, which it is not.

But that is how lenses are. My 50$ Nikkor Ai ‘outperforms’ either of the newer lenses for certain benchmarks. That doesn’t meant that the other lenses aren’t ‘better’ at something. Both are faaaaar more expensive.

Premium products don’t have to always be sharp.

That said, I agree with you and Robert… plastic only enforces the cheap image that Japanese lenses have accrued since- which is a shame.

Joven

I hate this focus on metal lenses. Granted, I’m a bit of a newbie, and I’ve only been shooting for 2 years, but it reminds me of people who think every car built 30 years ago were “tougher” and safer b/c they were made of so much more metal, but when you look at the crash tests, you see they do a horrible job of protecting the internals/cabin.

robert

no way man. its clear as day. this lens is a fail. now I want to hear the “pro” lensers say, well, but, no, and uh, he didnt, and wasnt, and the

lighting-BULLSHIT!

this is as clear cut as it gets. David is the snowden of the 58mm in the real world. no hidden stuff. this is real world. d800 and tripod. I dont believe anything other reviewers will say. I dont doubt his ability at all. see his work and realize, he is a pro hands down.

this lens is a fail and no noct. possible a bit better than a 50 1.4 but plastic body and not even close to the same sharpness wide open as the noct.

$1800 for a plastic 50 1.4. nikons true face is showing. nikon is trying to recoup on the factory loss and is cutting corner. it should have been built the Defocus control lenses build wise.

oh, were gonna have some heated debates. im psyched.

ShakyLens

I can actually feel the foam and spittle hitting me as you type. Troll much?

robert

haha. love all these comments. hilarious. I love it. the damage is done.

ShakyLens

What is hilarious is that you delude yourself into thinking anyone with $1700 to spend on a lens would pay any attention whatsoever to what an internet troll says about it. Oh how you’re going to eat your words. Depend upon it.

robert

dont listen to me. they see the pictures and other comments. im not the only one saying the same. not a $1800 lens. dont get all worked up 😉

Joel Coulson

Any normal person would look at the samples, read the reviews, test the lens, weigh up it’s strengths and weaknesses and only then decide if it suits their requirements before making a purchase.

I do find it a little odd that you feel the need to fill a forum full of vitriol in an attempt to sway people away from buying the lens after seeing a handful of sample images. It seems a little.. unbalanced.

robert

no need to sway people. people are not stupid. look at the posts. people see what the lens can and cant do. as a pro wedding photog I dont need to analyze pics. I look and instantly see. its about aesthetics and being pleasing to the eye. when a lens is not sharp, I dont say well it has good coma. for me and most people its sharpnes, then bokeh, then distortion/fringing/coma. for me and most people, its sharpness.

when you see pics over and over, your eyesight can understand what a lens is capable of instantly. many like to zoom in and analyze. I dont need to. and millions around the world dont need to as well. you can clearly see. I zoomed in on the first second and 3rd change meter pictures and it was enough for me. the others I just randomly looked, but those 3 were enough to tell me what it can do. its a capable lens. not for the money they demand.

when zeiss posted pics months back showing what their otus can do, I jumped the second I saw it the samples. I was shocked. I didnt need to zoom in, check corners. etc. the new samples admin posted a week ago are nothing in that league and you see instantly. the bokeh is great and sharpness is nice but not worth $4000. maybe $1200. because it says zeiss? it doesnt mean anyhting. shit the 105 2.5 lens at $100 is amazing and so is the $100 50 1.8 AFD. from 2.5 its razor sharp.

both are not bad lenses. but they simply arent worth the price tag. but read the posts and it will tell you, people are not dumb. they see what the lens can do. Joel I would not pay $1800 for a plastic lens. I dont think many will either. I would buy it at $700 but I think the 50 1.4g can deliver what this noct lens can.in this shitty economy people want worth for their money. they feel they need to get even more today. I agree.

Joel Coulson

Let me get this straight, you feel that the 50mm 1.4G delivers all that the 58mm 1.4G does wide open? You’re either this forums greatest troll or frankly have a very interesting view on what makes the characteristics of a certain lens appealing.

Might I direct your attention towards the following review which has the 50mm 1.4G exhibiting some of the nastiest corner coma I think I’ve ever seen from a 1.4 prime:

On par? I think not. As for the polycarbonate body, do your clients really care or even know? Why is it such an issue provided it’s as tough as a metallic body, lighter and suffers less from heat distortion?

fred

The 50mm f1.8 is sharper than the 50mm 1.4 at f2. The 50mm f1.4 ain’t a sharpness superstar! If you shot f2 all day you may as well get the 1.8.
There is no ‘bokeh slider’ in software, but you CAN adjust the sharpness in software!

Any lens with fantastic bokeh (like the Nikon 85mm f1.4) is a GOOD lens. Sharpness is secondary and can be enhanced in software.
As to value for money for the new 58mm, if you can afford this new 58mm (and justify its use) you’ll buy it, everyone else that cannot justify its USE can and will buy something else.
On a DX body the 58mm f1.4 would make a nice portrait lens.
Nikon wont sell many but the people that NEED it will be happy that it at least exists.

mikeswitz

He has no clients–he’s still trying to decide which side of the camera to look through.

neversink

Robert – once again you are making an ass out of yourself here. As I have said above, I own the NOCT and these handheld images in low light appear to at least equal the old NOCT. Great contrast, no COMA (again – don’t confuse blur from a bit of shake with coma,) wonderful bokeh (though the bokeh on the 50 isn’t bad,) not nearly as soft wide open like the 50 and really beautiful stopped down – better than the 50.

robert

I agree the pictures the lens produces are beautiful not argument. just not a $1800 lens.

Hystreella Contortionist

“I agree the pictures the lens produces are beautiful not argument. just not a $1800 lens.”

You’ve just described it a a fail and said that it’s not even sharp!

Cesar

Who buys a 1.4 to stop it down anyways? That’s it I’m switching to Canon, at least they have a legendary 50mm 1.2 that’s actually not from the stone age and has autofocus.

mikeswitz

Bye, bye

Joseph Li

Be my guest…the canon 50 1.2 is soft. Most would still prefer the 50 1.4 for the price. Gosh even the 85 1.2 is soft, I prefer the Nikon 85

Bob

“David is the snowden of the 58mm in the real world.”

Nikon is going to seek him out in an effort to imprison him forever for revealing their secrets of how they’ve been spying on Canon and committing espionage against Zeiss? Wow, this really is a big story isn’t it!

robert

yes it is. I salute him for showing undoctored images. all those known sites we go to for reviews say the greatest things about everything nikon delivers. and they must. for their own reputation.
I mean, who wants to read about a lens that isnt what they thought it would be when they were considering buying it. do one want to be disappointed..

but he is saying it like it is. its a nice lens, but not $1800 worth of a nice lens.

The problem with comparing it is, I’ve stacked it up against probably one of the best “value” lenses in the world. Is the $1700 58mm going to be, 6 times better than the $220 50mm 1.8G? No way. Its not. But it is incrementally better in probably every way. Add that up, and its worth something. I probably wouldn’t suggest this lens for a hobbyist trying to pinch pennies. If its going to pay the bills, that’s a different story.

Will the Otus, be 2-2.5X better than this lens? Probably not. It will be sharper, but for me completely unusable for my purposes with no autofocus. Is Leica’s $11k offering going to be that much better? No, not really. The higher you go, the more your returns diminish. We all know this to be true.

robert

Absolutely David. The 58mm is a great performer but nothing i dont see the 50 1.4g couldnt do. It has nice bokeh. But man $1700 for a plastic lens that isnt clearly superior to the 50 1.4g. That seems off to me.

I agree with you that since the pictures we take in weddings arent the lens’ potential capability Sharpening and editing is a must. I appreciate you being honest and posting them as they are.
Its a very nice lens but i would estimate it as a $700 lens but no more.

“$1800 for a plastic 50 1.4.”
What on earth are you talking about? You honestly think this lens is made of plastic? What an utterly, utterly stupid thing to say. A £100,000 car has parts that are covered in high quality plastics.

I would far rather have a lens’ protective outer made of a high quality forgiving plastic than a rigid metal that is cold to the touch in cold weather and which either bends permanently on impact or transmits 100% of any impact shock right though to the inner mechanism.

Why do you insist on commenting on things that you know nothing about and items that you are never likely to be in the market for?

Carlos Perreira

Oh shite, the resident nikonrumors loonie is at it again…run for your lives guys…

robert

loony or not people here are reaffirming what I said. and Davids pictures clearly shows it. this lens is a failure. if it was $700, maybe I would say..ok. but you cannot argue with what you see here. af speed confirmed. its not that quick. build quality, plastic. maybe inside its metal. but still, for $1800, I dont know may who prefer plastic over metal. and finally IQ. not impressive wide open. but the damage is done. millions around the world will see Davids images and his review and realize this lens is just a fail. dont be mad that some things that nikon puts out doesnt deliver for the money. its a nice lens, yes, but its clearly not a $1800 level lens. not even close. nikon has no integrity in my book.

passerby

I don’t think this lens is a failure. The bokeh is quite nice, and what was in the plane of focus appeared sharp. Shooting at 1.4 at longer lengths like the 85 1.4 has the same effect where things appear soft out of the razor-thin plane of focus. I enjoy the look, but using continual focus is difficult at that length and aperture and often the autofocus doesn’t hit exactly what you want it too. Wait for more studio tests; they will show this lens is sharp. Now I agree with you 100% that Nikon is charging way way way too much. Cut down the price by a $1000 and we have a supreme winner.

mikeswitz

I agree with everything you said, although it maybe too early to tell about sharpness and CA. But pay robert no mind. He is the resident troll and knows close to nothing about photography or photographers.

robert

see, someone with some sense. finally. bokeh is lovely. no doubt. and youre right about the small dof. but you can see where the focus is. its just not a sharp lens. no way in hell. nothing better than the 50 1.4g. this is real world tests. those handheld shots dont mean much. but the shots of the change meter was done on a tripod. they clearly show its performance wide open. its a very capable lens but not a $1800 lens. no way in hell. I say a $700 lens.not $1800. not for the build, not for the cheap lens hood, not for the slowish af speed. I dont care about coma, I want sharpness.

I trust David’s test over any other reviewer who will get payed for it. this for me is the definitive test. I dont need to see anymore. and I dont trust other reviewers. I know they might doctor them.

any pro photog will see the photos and see it in a split second what the lens is capable. I dont need to look it over and over to see its capabilities. to put it under the microscope, to try and analyze it. my eyes see this in a just a few seconds.

A nice lens, but not $1800 lens. and no NOCT.

shits, peoples comments here will be seen by millions around the world. the damage to nikon is done. you can be certain the sales will not be good. all the down votes means nothing. see other people posting the same. its a nice lens, but not worth the price tag.

and dont disrespect David as a pro. he took the time to test the lens and he did it well. I dismiss his hand held shots for sharpness but the outside tripod shots of the meter says it all.

Hystreella Contortionist

You can always tell the person who knows little about high end lenses by the way they talk about such a lens not being “sharp”.

Of course it’s sharp. All decent lenses are sharp. A good lens is plenty sharp enough. It’s the way that a lens renders, the way it looks, that separates it from the rest.

Frankly I’m embarrassed to be even answering such amateurish commentary about professional equipment, which is why I don’t use my own name.

The lens is most definitely sharp. I’m not quite sure what people were expecting. This lens is not about absolute sharpness. Have a look at the MTF and you’ll see. Left is 58mm, Right is 200mm f2. Now that lens is sharp. You’re absolutely right, the reason to own this lens is more subtle. Rendering bliss.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

+1 on this.
People just expected it to rival zeiss new 55/1.4 or perhaps be f1.2.
You know how people on this forum are.

Steve Griffin

I owned the Nikkor 50/1.4G and got rid of it for the Sigma 50 (really 47mm) so I’d be interested in seeing this lens 1st hand. But I expect Sigma will stir things up in a few months with a new version of their 50mm at a fraction of the price if the 35/1.4 is anything to go by.

My Pentax DA*55 is the best 50′ I’ve used and I would expect this Nikon 58 to be at least on par with that lens for the price. The DA* is a FF lens so it’ll be interesting to compare these lenses on a Sony A7r.

neonspark

1 review is hardly indicative due to sample variation. and reviewers don’t doctor images and stay reviewing lenses for long.

robert

You have much to learn young skywalker.

John

I love it when people come up with arbitrary prices based on nothing concrete.

Joseph Li

“nikon has no integrity in my book”..? over a single lens? what is wrong with you, you can move to Canon be my guest. Just a overpriced lens here, dont need to bash Nikon all over. Similar to the 35mm f/1.4G and 24mm f/1.4G: All plastics, decent AF and IQ performance, high price tag.

robert

exactly Joseph. and overpriced lens. I know there are many overpriced lenses in nikons lineup but at least they deliver regarding build and performance. this does neither.

integrity because nikon has been making some very bad decisions as of late and making loyal buyers feel betreyed and dismissed. the 900/910 the 600/610 24-70 zoom issues d800 af issues. they are very expensive equipment. too much qc problems.

who are you to tell me move to canon. if I wanted to, I would have done it a long time ago. thats not a solution. if youre married and you said youre having issues with your wife, how would you like it if I told you get another wife. enough pussy to around. hows that?

this lens shows nikon integrity or lack of. they are trying to recoup their losses from the floods with this lens as it clearly can does marginally better than the 50 1.4g. “lets get everyone hyped and “mention” noct when releasing it and watch them eat it up” this is no noct lens, not even close. the build is not there, cheap hood, af is average and a price tag that doesnt warrant what David has shown. but at least it has a gold ring and nameplate. if that isnt smoke in peoples eyes then people are just blind.

and you know what, I expect more from a photographer. I expect him to see things as they are. high level photographers have a way of seeing things unlike others.but most here are just gadget freaks but crap photogs.

Me? I love my shitty $100 50 1.8D (my 105VR is my favorite) and create some beautiful pics with it. the majority dont even now how to extract so much of the lens’ capability anyway. even this POS 1.8d I own. if youre not using a tripod the battle is already lost.

1 year from now when everybody is praising how awesome this lens is, nobody on earth will remember David’s images silly rabbit.

robert

Sorry but no. In this shitty economy people want worth for their dollars. And its very disrespectful you bad mouthing someone else taking the time to post photos for others to see. Youre very unappreciative.

And besides that, the damage is done. Word is spreading so fast on the lens’ performance and those pics he did will be weighed heavily by people thinking to buy the lens. Read above people being dissapointed who actually wanted to buy the lens.

More so, others will give the same feedback regarding the lens. And from here its a downward spiral. The damage is done an within a short time so many people will see the images that it will kill sales of the lens. And if the performance wont deter them for certain the fact thats plastic will. Not many would be willing to pay $1800 for a plastic.

Jonathan

You need some meds or something… jesus what the fuck is wrong with you?

Unmarried and still living with your parents at 30 or something???

robert

Yes how’d you guess 😉

neversink

I own the so-called “legendary” NOCT – and these shots look great. Don’t forget most are hand held.

robert

sure you do.

neversink

Listen… You are an idiot. All your posts show you know little about photography. I certainly do own a NOCT. It’s dented and dinged and I bought it for less than $500 used many years ago, but the glass is beautiful. I had to get it serviced, but it was with the extra few hundred bucks. And it’s not for sale.

robert

sure sure..look at you getting all worked up.

neversink

I think robert and cesar are one of the following:
1. the same person,
2. conjoined twins at birth
3. Photography school dropouts
4. lovers (because who else could stand to be with them for more than ten seconds)
5. All of the above.

Admin – Can we get an ignore button.

mikeswitz

+1

robert

no we are not the same. Cesar wants to move to Canon. I dont like Canon at all. its his choice though.

funny how you feel the need to insult others to strengthen your self esteem. notice how I dont stoop to your level. you are very low class and have no tact. and obviously no photog. would love to see your work.

mikeswitz

You don’t like Canon? But you don’t like Nikon either. I’ll bet you’re just wild about your iPhone!

robert

thanks for asking. my iphone is just so buggy lately. I went to my carrier and they replaced the sim. its not helping though. everytime I turn the phone on signal is low. after a few seconds it wakes up. but im moving when the end of the month comes up. how much does your cell plan cost you? im paying around $30 for 3gb data and no limit on my calls and text. and I can call many countries overseas as well.

I love nikon very much. I dont like canon at all. I was a “kill anyone who bad mouthed them” loyalist. but im so frustrated with them. they need this fall to come back. so I dont care for the insults and comments and down votes. they need to wake up. it will come though. but they will need another big quarterly loss to realize what theyve been doing. look at the tons of mistakes theyre making. loved the d3/d300/sb800 time. that was revolutionary stuff.

Richard Servello

Nikon makes great bodies. But their lenses over the past decade or so have been severely lacking. I’m currently selling my 50mm f1.4 because the half stop gain I paid for was countered by nearly a full stop loss due to vignetting. Garbage optics at all but f4-f8. So why keep it when my $90 50mm f1.8d is sharper, and lighter. I also just bought a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 that destroys this fantastic plastic overpriced marvel.

That was, of course, sarcasm… I don’t understand at all why those mikeswitz and neversink (who is one and the same if you ask me) can get so worked up about this. What’s wrong with some critisism although it’s a brand you and I love?

Let’s put this straight. Of course I think this is going to be one nice lens! It’s sharp, it has nice bokeh, it has everything it needs to have. But It’s placed in an overly saturated marked. I don’t understand why Nikon keeps fixing holes that aren’t there, they need to get their act together and pump out some truly amazing stuff that blows everyone away. This one doesn’t.

robert

I have no problem with the lens. its a very capable lens. no one will argue that. nice bokeh, sharpness is nice, but I dont see why they are charging $1800 for a plastic lens. this is not a $1800 level lens. why are people arguing that.

the 85 1.4 ($1400 is what I think) is stunning lens and that too isnt worth that much IMO but this is just a 50 1.4g.

I too used to get worked up if someone said anything about nikon so I know their POV. so thats what it is. its disspointing when you see the company ur so loyal to failing when you want them to be elite.

I dont like canon’s colors, lack of texture on the skin (a bit waxy for my taste)and I dont like the camera ergonomics and menu setup. but over here they dominate the market something like 80/20 so they must be doing something right. everyone should use the tool they need to capture images thats also good enough for their pocket.

robert

many here insult and get worked up because they care about nikon. I care very much about nikon. probably more than others. nothing gave me more joy than working with F5’s and Sb28’s in weddings. but I need to speak my opinion of the direction they are heading. people dont see it, but people have a different image of nikon today then a few years back and its not for the better.

nothing is more frustrating than shooting a wedding and your gear fails. the 24-70 zoom issue. the d4 and 70-200VR2 having af accuracy issues. flashes not firing on hot shoes. too much.

koenshaku

Reading your post seems like reading a the symptoms of a bipolar person. It is hard for me to type I agree with anything you are saying, but yeah from David’s photos it did change my opinion of the lens. I agree it is too expensive, but I also think it has its place in bags for specific use it may never make it in my bag at that price range, but I need to see more reviews contrasted to other primes before making a purchasing decision.

robert

Who cares

KnightPhoto

It was obvious to everyone upon introduction that the 50mm f/1.4G was not going to be Nikon’s top-entry in the normal lens bracket. So we always knew something was coming and that someday this hole in the lineup would be filled.

neversink

I think the insults first came from you. I’m actually tired of this nonsense. You may or may not have seen some of my work but I’ll post a link at some point. I’d like to see your photos, too. Now behave yourself.

robert

ah, now I remember. we had this argument a while back.

Guest

Initial self-aggrandising:
“notice how I dont stoop to your level.”

Followed by ad hominem attack:
“you are very low class and have no tact.”

This is what makes internet comment boards so entertaining on a social level. It is also what makes them such a failure on a personal level, like Facebook. Intellectual train wrecks.

fagg0t

Check out this circle jerk here…

umeshrw

Don’t feed the troll.

Cesar

Wow you own a NOCT. You’re AWESOME!

robert

haha. nice.

Jonathan

You have the same IP Address as Robert…

Scott M.

A lot of that going on in this place

Bert

Announcing this lens as a failure just because you’ve seen a few pictures is just silly. You show a clear lack of understanding.

neonspark

the 50 1.8 is ok, but will never beat this lens. sorry.

robert

Youre right. I didnt say a 1.8 is better but I do think the 50 1.4g can do 99% of what it can do and my other issue is the $1800 price. Especially since its plastic. Now people try to argue that plastic is great. No need for metal. They change their point to win an argument. When the d600 came out “what $2200 for a plastic camera?” Now its ok? A lens needs to outlast a camera. Plastic will get brittle over time and crack. Not metal.

If plastic is so great why didnt nikon make all the 2.8 zooms plastic? They did for this lens because its small and they said “yea, thatll do” but if i pay $1800 for a lens that mf better be metal. ChInese lens hood. Forget that. Complete ripoff. A $700 lens at most and im being generous with the estimate.

Nikons pulling a fast one on people. Performance is ok. Not stellar. But their trying to recoup on the loss wkth the factory flood.

Joel Coulson

Many of the night shots appear to exhibit a small amount of camera shake which seems to be affecting the overall impression of sharpness here, but there still appears to be some underlying software wide open. It’s a bit of a shame it wasnt stopped down to f1.8 and f2.0 to give us an idea as to when this lens really starts performing.

Theres also quite a bit of chromatic aberration present in the in-store shot of the Sigma sign, but then again this is pretty common with 1.4 lenses when you’re shooting subject with extreme contrast variances wide open.

neonspark

the 50 1.4G is useless wide open due to severe optical aberrations even if perceived sharpness is similar. that’s where the money goes.

errmm..what do you guys think? I ran through the first 12 images at 100% they looked very soft to me…maybe a bit better than the 50 1.4G, esp the bokeh, but the sharpness doesnt really blow me away or anything. Downsampled images from a D800 looks good on screen though. Well kind of disappointed i was ready to buy…
Great images by the way~ i was commenting on the lens performance not the photographer

Um, it pains me to say this. I kind of agree.
It just didn’t have that wide-open pop I was hoping for.

robert

sigma is delivering some great stuff lately. im very impressed. now we need a 24 14

Joseph Li

Actually, we need a 24 1.4 and a revised 50 1.4 from Sigma. Sigma has shown me that the nikon’s 35 1.4G is way overpriced for its decent performance, so hopefully they can prove the same for the other 2 lenses

fred

Bokeh of the Sigma 35mm f1.4 isn’t that great.

Amazingly sharp though.

leonrenstfeld

I agree. This is not exactly what I was hoping for, but what I expected. Nikon never even spoke much about the sharpness in the press release. They talked about point light sources, bokeh and stuff. The MTF chart only looked slightly better than that of the 50/1.4. And while I agree that the bokeh looks good, I’m really waiting for a comparison between this and the 50/1.4 (e.g. by Matt Granger). So far I don’t see how factor 5 in price could be justified for most photographers.

noel82

I think that the samples Nikon provided after the presentation of this lens were actually really “well made”: they seemed to all of us lacking in sharpness as they are in these samples provided by the user. So I think THAT is the actual resolution and sharpness of the lens, and not a bad use of timings/iso etc…

fred

Would the sharpness look sharper if shot hand-held on a D700 or a D800??

Jason Cheng

Nice photos! Thanks for sharing. I recognize the store owner. I buy ball my camera stuff from them. I think the real comparison will be when you get a hold of the Zeiss version. I look forward to seeing the comparison.

Nice site by the way!

koenshaku

Hmm.. Seems too close to in quality to its 50mm 1.8 brotherin for its price tag. I will reserve my opinion for official reviews though I have to say it did take some wind out of my sails checking these shots out…

Did notice some CA in the pictures.. not much but hey, for a $1700 lens i’d expect nothing but perfect? :þ

Especially when i am considering buying it in my weak moments.

saywhatuwill

The 85mm f/1.4G has CA in spades. From what I heard the 35mm f/1.4G has it too. Both are $1700 lenses, so I guess we can’t expect perfection for that price.

Kaj Fallström

The 85 1.4G is more than 20% cheaper and the 35mm is almost 15% cheaper than the 58mm, at least here in Sweden.

But for what it’s worth.. its expensive as f*ck here. From SEK to $ the price for now is about:

35mm 1.4G: $2347
85 1.4G: $2018
58 1.4G: $2550

Damn taxes.. 🙁

Pat Mann

I like being able to buy these lenses for less, but I’d rather pay a bit more and have the public investment in infrastructure and human capital and less waste of land and other resources. You get what you pay for, but sometimes that last increment in quality comes at a pretty high price.
Let’s wait till we see the Zeiss and start this discussion all over again. Is the Zeiss worth 3x the price of the Nikkor, which is or is not worth 4x the price of the 50 f/1.4 G?

Hystreella Contortionist

I have both the 85 and 35 and yes, they both exhibit CA.

When you actually use the things, CA is just not an issue. I can’t remember ever noticing it apart from in initial testing. Just two beautiful lenses.

saywhatuwill

I only have the 85mm (not the 35mm) and though I was disappointed initially when I saw the CA I found that I could eliminate it in ViewNX2. You’re right that once we start using the lens we really don’t pay much attention to it.

jmb2560

I may be dumb but can someone explain why spending $1,700 for this lens made of plastic (even if this is a nice plastic from Japan)?
At f/1.2 it would make sense (sort of…) but why such high price for another f/1.4G.
Ok, I can already hear a product manager at Nikon Japan say ” because we can”. Sorry, it’s not good enough for me.

Joseph Li

Well…from the samples here…if Nikon calls this sharp at f/1.4, I think it will get worse if it’s going to be at f/1.2. Then it might end up like Canon a f/1.2 that’s unsharp but boost a lot of ego

fred

Yep, if it was f1.2 people would say it was worth the price tag.

Even if f1.2 was soft…. and even if they never actually used it at f1.2.
But it can go to f1.2….so now its worth it… 😉

Major Boner

I am with you…Hell a Nikon 60mm 2.8D the old one..can out do this over priced plastic junk. I don’t get it. What am I missing. 1700 is too much for so damn little.

Joel Coulson

I tend to buy lenses for the quality of their optics, not based upon whether their packaging is turned aluminium or near bulletproof polycarbonate.

neversink

Because it is physically impossible to mount a f/1.2 on Nikon digital cameras. Secondly the falloff on photos from my old noct lens wide open at F/1.2 brings the edges down to f/ 1.4 (easily) – I doubt this lens has the same falloff at f/1.4, but perhaps David or Admin can enlighten us a little more. As I said, when I return to the states for a few weeks I will test this lens. (I can’t get a copy here in Kenya.) I also think the contrast is a bit better on this lens than the 58 NOCT. But this lens is not for everyone.

You can still buy the old Nikon 50mm f1.2 for about $700 to $800 brand new. And it fits.

Neversink is talking rubbish.

neversink

I meant to write, that I have been told by some techie that new F/ 1.2 lenses with AF can not be made for Nikon digital cameras because of the mounting system on Nikon cameras. Because the mounting system is different on Canon, an f/1.2 is available. Perhaps my info is wrong. Yes, you can mount the old NOCT on a digital camera, but you still need to use manual focus, obviously, and focusing this NOCT lens wide open on a digital Nikon camera can be a bit tedious and time consuming and hit and miss due to the shallow depth of field.

RicardoVaz

Really, F*CK the weight, if I choose to pay U$1.700,00 on a 50mm it should be made of adamantium or some alien metal that they found in an asteroid. Its just ridiculous making a plastic lens in this price range, it should be metal WITH metal ring!

HotDuckZ

Metal = easy to dented.

robert

I would take the 105/135 DC build anyday over the recycled plastic they put on this shit.dent or not. thats the real nikon quality they have a reputation for. not this recycled plastic crap of todays lenses.

this_isnt_real

the plastic is just as strong and lighter. all of the high end fast primes have been plastic and all have been great performers. if you can’t spend 1700 bucks for a lens so be it. most can’t, but people who do portraits for a living might.

robert

plastic vs metal is just your opinion. do a poll and ask people what they want their $1800 lens to be and the clear answer will be metal. nothing to argue about. why people love their old primes? because its metal and built like a tank.

paulcraig

dont ask other people to do a poll; do it yourself to prove your point, or just shut up.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

People will think metal is stronger, so they will pick it in the poll anyway.
But let me tell you how strong the platics are on these lenses.
Last year when I was about the attatch a tripod plate under my camera, the camera slippet out of my hand, and I dropped my D4 with a 24/1.4 from a 30 cm hight and it went lens first right in a rock.
And what was the damage? the D4 was scratchless, and the lens only got a small mark and som small cracks in the plastics on the outside of the filterring. Filters goes on as nothing has happed, and I think I would have some problems with filters if the filterring was metal.

Metal sure is strong and have a quality feel to it, but the plastics nikon uses isn’t the cheap china stuff you think it is.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

People will think metal is stronger, so they will pick it in the poll anyway.
But let me tell you how strong the platics are on these lenses.
Last year when I was about the attatch a tripod plate under my camera, the camera slippet out of my hand, and I dropped my D4 with a 24/1.4 from a 30 cm hight and it went lens first right in a rock.
And what was the damage? the D4 was scratchless, and the lens only got a small mark and som small cracks in the plastics on the outside of the filterring. Filters goes on as nothing has happed, and I think I would have some problems with filters if the filterring was metal.

Metal sure is strong and have a quality feel to it, but the plastics nikon uses isn’t the cheap china stuff you think it is.

Marc W.

You make it out of plastic, you get complains for an $1800 lens made out of plastic. You make it out of metal, you get complains at the weight out of the $2000 lens. Can’t make everyone happy.

phosgene

I love the feel of a metal lens. The old portrait lenses you mentioned earlier are glorious. But, Nikon has put all of their modern glass tech in plastic bodies, so there’s no optical reason to stick to the classic lenses (unless you like the ‘feel’ of an old lens in which case, get off my porch!).

If modern lenses were honestly failing field photographers left and right, we’d see more metal than we do. Plastic is serving us well.

saywhatuwill

Really? The 24mm f/1.4G is made of plastic and that’s $2000. The 85mm and 35mm f/1.4G are $1700 and they’re made of plastic. Not seeing where you get the idea that the 58mm lens should be abnormal and have some “alien metal” for $1700. It’s water resistant like the other lenses and has Nano coating with the addition of aspheric elements. That’s more than what the 50mm f/1.4G has.

Bret M

I think his point was that he wishes all of those lenses were also made of metal, and I agree with him. Warps less from heat, can be dented but also will continue to work whereas plastic cracked will permanently disable the lens, etc.

Joel Coulson

Plastic is more prone to warping? You realise that metal expands when it heats right?

I’m a young, relatively strong and fit guy. I’d be with you, until you start carrying this stuff around in volume. At a wedding, my 70-200 is a workhorse. But what I once thought was cool, quality, impressive and confidence inspiring quickly becomes just plain “heavy”. If a lense is so light it doesn’t balance, that’s a bad thing, but short of that, I’ll take lighter any time. I work with these lenses, and am very rough on my gear. I’ve never had any reliability issues that I would attribute to plastic, or lack of build quality… out of any lens! Even cheapo sigma stuff, from years back. And that is with rough, brash, heavy handed use.

phosgene

Exactly. If plastic lenses were failing on pro photographers left and right, all we’d see is metal. But as of yet, Nikon’s been able to produce fantastic lenses in light bodies. My full-metal-jacket 2-ring 80-200 is a wonderful lens, but not a day goes by that I don’t wish I had the current 70-200.

Hystreella Contortionist

Talk of this lens being “made of plastic” is just ridiculous.

Believe it or not there is glass in there and metal too.

Superficially it has a plastic outer which is a good deal more shock resistant than metal. I’d take the plastic any day if I wanted to protect a valuable lens like this.

Even Rolls Royce have been known to use plastics in their cars, but it doesn’t mean that their cars are made of plastic!

one thing I will say is build quality and af speed. My friend just recently bought the 85 1.8G and 50 1.4g (2 days ago) he says the same thing as David does, and I used the 85 1.8 for just a handful of shots at a wedding (brides hair salon) and the AF is not quick. older versions of these lenses are faster and lock with authority. contrast and sharpness is better though. but not so noticeable till you side by side the images.

build quality is deceiving on the lenses. especially the 85 1.8g. you hold it in your hand and you laugh. its a chunky little thing and you think its gonna have some heft, but it weighs less than the 1.8D. the barrel exterior looks great with the crinkly bits but feels cheaply made once you hold it. its why you laugh because before touching it, it looks impressive. once you hold it you cant believe the level nikon has gone. it feels like some recycled plastic.its more about the look than feel. the older 1.8D looks like crap but its very robust and af snaps into lock very fast. its not like the feel of the metal barrel of the 70-200 VRII. its a cheap plastic that looks like it but feels, meh.

we did a simple test to see how fast it goes from one side of the scale to the other by focusing on a plain white wall and the 85 1.8 g is just lethargic compared to the caffeine and red bull injected 1.8d. its very noticeable. and David is confirming the same behavior with the 58mm. so the dilemma is, get the newer gen lenses with slower af but better IQ or older gen with a bit less sharpness and contrast but zippy af.

Hystreella Contortionist

“we did a simple test to see how fast it goes from one side of the scale to the other by focusing on a plain white wall and the 85 1.8 g is just lethargic compared to the caffeine and red bull injected 1.8d.”
The 1.8D can hardly be described as red bull injected. It doesn’t even have a focus motor and is powered by the camera.

robert

and thats the reason why no prelaunch reviews were out. cause the lens is sub par for a noct lens. I wont say it..well yea, I will. told you so! $1400 overpriced 50 1.4g lens with POSSIBLY better bokeh. this is no legendary noct and not even close. Nikon used to do some great things and bring some unique things. another “all hype” lens. people are not stupid. they saw what those sample pics were. and Davids pics confirm the same sharpnes exactly!. BRAVO DAVID! I salute you for being honest.

Im sure now reviewers like mansurov will try to hype the lens up even though we see the proof done in real life. this is as real life testing as you can get. a d800 and tripod! if the d800 cant resolve its potential, no other sensor can!

David, being honest and showing it like it is takes guts.thats true integrity.

Jo

It’s spherochromaticism you dolt, from being such a fast lens. Unavoidable and not a “defect,” just optics.

robert

sorry Jerk Off, err jo, but this lens is a fail anyway you look at it. build quality, af speed (slow, like the 50 and 85 g’s vs old afd), performance wide open. over priced. huge fail.go back to your roots nikon. there you will find success. this is not innovation.

mikeswitz

Get back on your effn meds.

robert

no need for meds man. im so happy at this fail, no med can make me feel this way. im just hoping the DF is a success for nikon though.

Pablo Ricasso

“…no need for meds man…”

Oh yes you do, unfortunately more than you know or are willing to admit. You really need to get your head checked, dude…and p$ss off this forum and leave the grownups discuss.

robert

hehe…im so psyched nothing you can say can do damage.

neversink

Don’t even bother trying to explain things to robert… He has diarrhea of the mouth and the keyboard. Guy puts his foot in his mouth every time he posts a comment. Oh well. I am sick of him on this site and his know-it-all attitude and his holier-than-thou comments.

Thanks. I will say, these files are as flat as a pancake. And really aren’t “honest” to real world, for me anyway, where I would process them, and add sharpening etc. So they are honest in that they are PLAIN raw, but not what you’d get from me if you hired me!

Kimaze

The color fringe looks bad, the old 50mm f1.4g is still the best choice for the price tag. Was expecting it looks something similar to the new Zeiss Otus 55mm, what a disapointment.

DL

apparently this lens disables the light temperature settings

Allan Smith

Good to see the love in the photographic world is increasing 😀

preston

Great images – thanks David. For the sake of comparison I would have loved to see a direct real world comparison of this to the 1.8G though. That way people can put into perspective what they’re getting for the money.

Drazen B

Lens hood made in China…on a $1700 lens, you gotta laugh…they did the same with the 24mm f/1.4G.

Nothing against China-made, really, but if you’re tooting a lens as ‘Made In Japan’ then do it thoroughly and properly, Nikon.

Magnus

What’s the difference if a lens hood’s specifications and requirements list is all made by Nikon, the design is made by Nikon, the raw material (which has a huge impact on the quality) to be used is selected by Nikon, and the mould is designed by Nikon? All that set, there is no reason at all to believe that a hood produced in China would be any worse than one produced in Japan. I don’t know, but I think these are made also in Nikon’s factory in China, not by a subcontractor. Not that it would matter too much if it was, given the hood specifications and quality requirements by Nikon are fulfilled. That’s what matters. Not in which country it was produced. At least considering the quality. Ethically it sure matters a bit where it’s made though. I’d avoid buying stuff that is produced in a factory where the labor is treated poorly and have no rights.

Hystreella Contortionist

“Lens hood made in China…on a $1700 lens, you gotta laugh”
Oh FFS!

callibrator

You don’t read much do you? Probably don’t know much about things either…

Hystreella Contortionist

I’m just absolutely stunned that someone is so desperate to criticise this lens that he’s even complaining about which country the bit that clips on to the front is made in!

If that, by your logic, means that I “don’t know much about things” then so be it, but I do know how to spell calibrator.

callibrator

You don’t read much do you? Probably don’t know much about things either…

Pablo Ricasso

Canon seems to be more consistent in this regard, besides most all of their L-lenses and L-lens parts are made in Japan. Not that it matter much these days, but I still prefer my lenses and parts to be made in the country of origin. So yeah, I’m all for ‘Made in Japan’, personally.

Alan

sigh…. my 55mm f2.8 ais micro is even sharper then this. tell me if I am wrong even my 24-70 f2.8 is even sharper… I was waiting for result holding back the sigma 50mm f1.4 well I guess I will order one now. come on Nikon I belive in you. please make a pro 50mm f1.2 or f1.4. I am hoping the new Df come with a improve 50mm f1.8g

Well, it’s not entirely fair to compare a 2.8 vs. a 1.4 but yes, my impression is that my 24-70 is sharper wide open than this.

Marc W.

Is this not a pro version of a 50ishmm lens? Not sure what else you’re looking for, except for a cheaper price.

Cesar

Nikon this is a joke. Please tell us, why didn’t you put some effort in… say… a nice weathersealed 135mm f2 or something. Or an update for 35mm f2 for example. Dang!

neversink

I don’t think it’s a joke at all. I think this could be a very serious lens. We are not talking about a 135 or 35 on this thread are we? This is about the 58 f/1.4. Perhaps we all think your whining post is a joke.

Cesar

Of course we’re not talking about 35 or 135 here, it’s a 58mm that looks exactly the same as the 50mm 1.4G that’s about $1200,- less. My point being: who needs this thing? No-one. I honestly don’t understand their decision for this one.

mikeswitz

It’s amazing how so many people can see so much from just a few images. Not shooting with lens, not reading what David had to say was his experience, only looking “sharpness” wide open and then declaring that the lens is a “joke”. A lens coming from one of the great optics companies in the world. Maybe you and robert ought to go into business together and create some truly awesome gear.

Cesar

Actually, it’s the focal length that really bothers me. Of course you can expect the sharpness to be top notch (especially for that price) but I just can’t imagine anyone picking this over any one of the other options available by one of the great optic companies in the world. You really can’t tell the difference between this lens and the already available 50mm 1.4 (or 1.8, what you want)

mikeswitz

How do you know! You have seen anything yet. A few shots hand held. You are making your comments based on so little. Great cinematographers will choose lenses based on the different qualities those lenses have even though, say a Cooke is not as sharp as an Anngeniex. The only “facts” you have is it’s plastic and its a 50mm f1.4. That it. None of those facts make it a “joke” Maybe, maybe you can call it that in 2 weeks. But not now.

neversink

They would lose all their money in a second.

neversink

Better get your eyes examined, Cesar. I see quite a bit of difference in these examples.

Just what the Nikon press release says:
“…superior rendering of point light sources and beautiful bokeh with smooth focusing transition from blurred to sharp”
To me, they delivered on that purpose.
Again, not my most important need, but still.

Cesar

Nikon will tell you that same thing in the press release of a 28-300…

mikeswitz

no they won’t

Cesar

yes they will

Nick

This is why I hate coming to camera forums/rumor sites… you guys are making an awful lot of snap judgements off of one test in some pretty rough conditions. I’d like to see some side by side tests of the 50mm 1.4(which I thought was a pretty weak lens overall) in some more traditional lighting conditions up to about 800-1600 ISO. To be honest without fail I thought all of the shots taken with the 58mm looked better. I went through picked my favorites then went back and verified.

Is it $1400 better I don’t know…maybe?

As for plastic…well I used to own some AFD lenses and sure the metal build does feel nice, but I imagine when one hits the ground it hits like a ton of bricks with a hard thud. I was quickly swapping lenses in dark conditions and dropped my 50mm 1.4G on the ground and the damn thing bounced halfway across the room on concrete floors, but aside from a few scuffs the lens was perfectly ok. I think if it had been made of metal it would have just hit the ground with a sickening thud. Since then I’ve been a little less critical of the whole metal build thing.

saywhatuwill

I think many of you are starting to lose perspective here. The pictures that David posted wide open (f/1.4) with the 58mm f/1.4G show a small bit of coma but if you compare that to the 50mm f/1.4G you’ll realize just how good it really is. So, here’s an example of the 50mm f/1.4G wide open in the corners: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/10467603355/ You’ll see bat wings all over the place at f/1.4. Even a street lamp isn’t safe.

neversink

I don’t think you are seeing coma on the lens but slight movement as these were handheld. Blurs may be mistaken for coma. I get the same results on my Noct if I hand hold at slow speeds. Put it on a tripod, take several shots with MUP to eliminate shake and you will see no coma.

MisterF

Sorry, it’s coma.

neversink

I don’t think so, but I will look again. Remember one of the things this lens was designed for. To be able to focus on points of light at infinity with no coma. Astrophotographers will love this as will those shooting certain types of scenes at night.
I don’t know if I’ll purchase it. I hardly use my NOCT anymore, but it isn’t easy to use on a digital camera wide open. AF should definitely help.

Steve Griffin

Yeah, the star shots were impressive and definitely worth considering if you’re into astro.

Pat Mann

The night test shots NIkon shows on their web site clearly show coma in the new lens, but it’s far less than with the 50 f/1.4 G, which is somewhat better than the older f/1.4 Nikkors. I remember seeing coma on my contact sheets with my old 50 at f/1.4. I had to blow up the D800 demo shots from the 58mm to 1:1 to make it obvious. The flare resistance and the quality of out-of-focus areas on this lens in these shots make it look like a winner to me.
Resolution testing really depends on test-worthy conditions, and corner sharpness is hard to judge when you don’t have something flat to look at. Very little is going to be in the plane of focus shooting at f/1.4. so you really can’t tell the resolution of the lens from these shots. Resolution to the corners is of critical importance only when you’re shooting something flat and want to show something detailed over the entire frame. While those shots aren’t the bulk of what I shoot, they do come up occasionally and are a big challenge with many lenses when they do. I will be doing a close comparison of this with the Zeiss lens to make a purchase decision.

saywhatuwill

Kind of hard to have a truck and buildings that have sharp edges and the stationary lights have movement. Just doesn’t happen.

Tick-Tock

Come on guys, this is just one “test.” I’m a bit disappointed with these uninspiring test. I’ll wait for photos by better photographers using the lens in its intended use before making final judgments.

SoftOnDemand

I really think that a lens shouldn’t be judged based on its sharpness or its aperture but more of its characteristics.

As of now I think its too early to judge. imho.

mooh

And “characteristics” is the most objective factor in “judging” any optics.

For example, ” – but I like its (unique) characteristics/ signature” is one of the more common phrases seen in the Leica land.

I like the signature of my 55/1.2 Nikkor-S.C. wide open, even though it’s extra soft, has huge coma and aberration and flares like hell.

I think my 1937 uncoated Summar 50/2 (lots of cleaning marks) has more characteristics than anything else, is it the most superb lens in the world?

SoftOnDemand

I thought the majority of the community would come up with a straight forward consensus as always.

Marc W.

I shot with a friend’s Minolta 58mm 1.2 wide open, and while it’s not sharp wide open, it was a beautiful lens.

Arthur Nazarian

What characteristics? 58mm with f/1.4? You can buy a couple of 50/1.4G’s then with the same “characteristics”.

I think SoftOnDemand is referring to the non-technical characteristics, since sharpness and your characteristics are the same “type”.

Marc W.

I think SOD meant, sharpness and aperture _alone_.

Arthur Nazarian

Ooooooh, so exciting, what DID SoftOnDemand actually mean?!?!

Arthur Nazarian

Ooooooh, so exciting, what DID SoftOnDemand actually mean?!?!

mfletch

exactly… those expecting this to just be a super sharp, fast prime are missing the point. They also don’t get why a 58/1.2 Noct costs more than a 50/1.2. Hint… it’s not the 8mm difference in focal length. Nikon is claiming that this new lens resists, coma flare and abberation at wide open aperture, which other fast primes are poor at. There has yet to be a claim that it would be bleeding eye sharp.

neonspark

just because you can buy 9 dodge neons for the price of a BMW, doesn’t mean you get the same.

Arthur Nazarian

That’s exactly the point in my sarcasm.

robert

aperture no, but sharpness? cmon man. people look for sharpness first and foremost. bokeh after and then distortions last.

Beso

I am not impressed but I will wait for some more thorough testing before coming to a conclusion. Initial impressions are it’s a bit soft and suffers from some chromatic aberration just like my expensive 85 f/1.4.

Eric Calabros

Oh people. If its overpriced, dont buy it. simple as that
now take a deep breath

Stéphane Pierrejeu

I’ve thought it was “lens (sample image)” and all I get is “(lens sample) image”. I am disappoint.

Be a sue he doesn’t have a copy of the f 1/4/ But knowing how the 50 f/1.4 works, I would say images from that would even be softer wide open than the 50 f/1.8

ShakyLens

I didn’t read anywhere whether the author of these images had done any kind of AF calibration. To my eye every single one is front focused – it’s pretty obvious. The samples are much softer than those Nikon posted a few weeks ago. Apologies to David, but these samples are not representative of what this lens can do. It’s of course always possibly it’s a poor copy, which would be very disappointing, but it happens.

robert

nonsense. dont disrespect David as a pro. his photos show he is a very capable photographer. youre trying to dismiss his test but that is as real world as it gets. youre trying to find fault at everything because the lens isnt what you would have liked. the pictures are of the same level the nikon samples are. dont disrespect David.otherwise go out and do those same tests and prove him wrong. Im completely dismissing the hand held shots for the lens’s sharpnes capabilities but the shots of the meter and the picture of the street sign shows the lens is soft.

the lens is a fantastic lens. but the price tag doesnt make sense.

ShakyLens

Well ‘robert’, one only needs to look at the samples Nikon posted. Are you accusing them of faking theirs? Come on, get a grip. Wait, why am I wasting time trying logic with a troll. Sod off.

robert

my problem is not of nikons sample images. they are not impressive by any means. Davids sample photos are of the same level the sample show. I didnt say they faked theirs at all. the lens is a nice performer. it has nice bokeh. but certainly nothing more the 50 1.4G cant do. and lets be reasonable. its not a $1800 caliber lens. not even close. plastic for that price..cmon.

Drazen B

Well, it appears you just met ‘robert’ 😉

robert

man all I can think about is how much traffic NR has gotten in the last month. good for him. he does a great job of delivering accurate info.

Pablo Ricasso

Your idiotic and trollish replies certainly contributed to the total tally.

robert

absolutely 😉

Irena Vulich

??
Psychiatrists would have filed day with you on their couch…

What a piece of work you are, they don’t come like you too often.

robert

🙂 nice try.

M!

i had high expectation of this lens, but looking at this one photo by this photographer, i wonder if it is a good representation of this lens’ actual capabilities and quality.

He probably had the WB on Auto and didn’t take and set up a custom manual WB.

Marc W.

No, the you can see the black text turning green when it blurs into the background

Lens tester

These “sample” images may look nice – ie “pretty”, but they are all horrible from a technical (lens-testing) point of view. Never mind the high isos, making noise (and sharpness) so much a function of unknown noise reduction settings. Never mind the fact that autofocus was used, which is bound to miss 1. in low light, 2. with high-speed lenses and (most importantly given the previous two factors) 3. in a non-calibrated (af fine tuned) setting. What ultimately makes these images useless as test images with regard to optical quality is the fact that they were hand-held at 1/60. Nobody (except perhaps Ken Rockwell?) can hand-hold at 1/focal with a 36 MP FX body and no VR and deliver stellar results, and it shows. As far as the tripod used is concerned, it doesn’t seem to reliable (the out-of-focus path the airplane takes in the photo where it is present displays a healthy amount of wiggling at the beginning, despite it being so blurred – this affects the entire image of course, and would undoubtedly be visible among the stars, if they weren’t already so much out-of-focus). So while the samples are a testimony to David’s capabilities as a wedding photographer, they cannot help much to evaluate the technical quality of the lens – except perhaps for the astounding resilience to flare, which is clearly on display in the set with the street sign and the street light in the middle of the image.

robert

lens tester hahaha disrespecting the photographer just makes you look bad. he did a fine job.

samseite

he did his best to the real situation of lights , show some respect

MisterF

I think these are real life photos taken in normal use conditions. It’s not chart test, he did his best. I think it’s a valuable set of images.

Jon McGuffin

He said straight up from the beginning it would be an informal test but isn’t that kind of the point? We don’t shoot for the purpose of the test, we shoot for the purpose of the image. So I think this kind of test is actually the RIGHT kind of test. If you can’t see a difference here, then what’s the point?

I don’t shoot in test like conditions. Ever. I don’t really care if a lens performs great in lab conditions, I’m trying to see if this is worth adding it to the stable. I did try and state right up front, and in a previous post that I would be doing a very informal test – real world. If you have a tripod with you wherever you go, and can shoot at base ISO, why would you really need 1.4?

Alas, I do not have the skills of Ken Rockwell. Thanks heavens. I think my family would be starving on the street right now.

I did do a quick AF fine tune, again, no tripod, informal, the lens seemed to backfocus a bit. I suspect my D800 might be partially to blame. Its been through a lot.

I’ll leave all the technical stuff up to people who are far more skilled in that arena than I. And I’m sure that will all be out soon. I was sort of racing against the clock to get these up ASAP. Its a rumour site, and we love the bleeding edge.

Marc W.

I’d love to see “tests” that you do when you’re on assignment. Please post back those with your thoughts and post processing steps.

Lens tester

I think I owe you an apology, since I did not intend to say that you did a bad job with the pics – I merely wanted to point out that they cannot be used to evaluate the lens’ optical properties in a meaningful way – that is for the sake of a comparison with another lens.
I am sorry if it came out like I disapproved of your sharing these images which I do not. What I do disagree with are the negative opinions concerning the lens’ performance that had been voiced here, since I strongly feel that in a shooting situation similar to the one you shot the lens in, other aspects limit technical image quality much more than the lens’ sharpness etc.
As for the differences between “test like” and “real” conditions, depending on the application, they might not be so great. Just one of many examples for the need to shoot high-speed lenses from tripods wide open is even among your images – the starry sky (think other night time landscapes, scenes where you need to achieve certain shutter speeds, landscapes where one wants to profit from a lenses falloff etc).

fred

I notice on Davidiam.com , his website, I noticed that even he uses the 50mm f1,8 and not the 50mm 1.4. for his portraits.
I’m waiting for other test photos before I judge – but saying that, I cannot afford the price tag anyway… 🙁
If the price tag was 600 or 700 I’d buy it, selling my 50mm 1.8 AF-S.

Extra

Way too soft. Maybe both lenses have been swapped by mistake? Nothing that wins over 50 1.8 … 😉
Or is it the cam? Sharpness setting seems to be at least -20 … Not taking about front-/backfocus. Even the focal plane is – friendly spoken – “dreamy”. But I’ve dreamed of sth different … :-))

stormwatch

Is this overpriced underachiever VR? No? Ok, it’s good for the “photo purists” and no one else…

Joel Coulson

VR in a sub 200mm prime? lol!

stormwatch

Man…what a “photo purists” world….have you ever heard about video makers? And you can not possibly carry the tripod all the time. I understand when somebody makes it’s opinion due to knowledge on the matter…but when someone doesn’t have a simple clue about something, that’s getting more and more exciting.

Joel Coulson

VR is omitted from primes with a shorter focal length because it’s generally accept that VR gives you poorer image quality by actually inducing shake if you’re running your shutter at a high enough speed. If you’re a videographer then you’re not going to want in lens VR either because it’s got this nasty little tendency to snap back into the centre once it hits a vibration great enough to have the movable optic hit the limit of travel (for those lenses without X axis lockout for panning). You’re more than likely going to want to use a steadycam and turn lens based VR off all together.

stormwatch

Using steady for almost 2 decades, but camera can not be all time mounted on steadicam, this claim of your is ridiculous, sorry. When shooting handheld, you would time to time require VR lens, not a shoulder based rig, tripod or steady.

PapaZerg

go buy a steady cam. i understand where you are coming from, trust me, i really do as a VFX and pre-prod artist.

this lens is just not made for something like what you and i have in mind. this is made for for people who need great coma control wide open, like people shooting or recording the milky way.

stormwatch

Different kinds of projects require different filming techniques. I hope we agree on this one.

neversink

I worked in the movie business until 1988, when i suddenly upped and left. Went out on my own, and never regretted it. To this day, I don’t know a single moving film DP or a videographer who depends on DSLRs for their work. They use professional cameras. The videographers I know all use Ikegami or Sony. Talk about expensive equipment. Some of it goes for more than 100K. But even a good setup for photojournalism can cost between 5K and 10K. Why use a DSLR for video when there are so many more alternatives out there that require less accessories and do a better job and are more ergonomically and technically designed for video??? Yes, some people are using DSLRs for video with astonishingly good results, but they aren’t turning on vr when they shoot.

uvafan420

I ask my self the same question every time I hear someone complaining about video luxuries in a stills designed DSLR. They are put in there to sell more cameras as luxury features. Not to be someone’s dedicated business video recorder. Go buy the correct tools for the right job if you want video.

BTW, I certainly do not see a 1500 difference between the lenses. Actually I did not see a difference at all really. Sorry.

mikeswitz

I’ve worked in the film/TV business pretty much my entire adult life. You can look me up on IMDB (Michael Switzer). I started out as a 16mm cameraman and moved on to directing. The term videographer is relatively new and I’m not sure what it means. Is it someone who normally shoots stills and throws in a video? Is it a documentary cameraman who uses a DSLR? I honestly don’t know. I do know that there are a couple of series now shot for cable using Canon and may one using Nikon, but really serious digital work is being done on dedicated Digital cameras like the Red or Panavision and now the Arri. If one is going to shoot an episode or feature film with a digital camera one would need so many add-ons, ancillary accessories that you might as well use one made for the job. People here who claim to be “videographers” are amateur filmmakers learning a new business.

mikeswitz

Wasn’t that woman who had John Edwards baby a “videographer”?

neversink

Just curious, how much does an Alexa XT cost? They are beautiful cameras.
I rarely use the video features on my Nikon, although the quality is good on the D800. On occasion, I have been asked if I would, for an additional fee, back up my stills with some video actualities. I either hired an experienced moving film photographer to accompany me for part of the shoot, and charged the client 10 percent plus expenses for my effort, or I told the client to provide someone. I prefer to concentrate on still photography, but I would definitely buy a Sony PMW-320 series camera if I wanted do some serious work. It weighs about seven pounds before you add any accessories, but the footage looks great. I would prefer to go lighter, but I am not sure I would get the same quality.

mikeswitz

I don’t know how much the Alexa XT costs but Arri makes beautiful, if somewhat heavy gear. Also highly customizable. I didn’t mean to say you can’t make decent videos using your DSLR. Clearly the video quality can be quite high. It is probably the equivalent of using a high end compact digital camera at a big event. If the client really expects professional results (a well cut, slick finished product) it sounds like what you are doing is the ideal solution.

Captain Megaton

At least somebody around here gets it.

PapaZerg

thanks. i used to shoot pretty photos of buildings at twilight for billboards, the prints are several stories high and sometimes, a whole building wide.

this lens is going to be handy for this purpose since it SHOULD be sharp from afar/infinity.

since the prints are gigantic(probably the biggest in the industry at that time), a single point of light from a street lamp matters a lot because people WILL see it. I struggled with coma on the corners a lot, and the NOCT lenses are the answers to this. no amount of photoshop will remove this thing.

our prints are so huge that we even use a software to resample the pixels when we enlarge the then state of the art 10MP images to something bigger.

neversink

And please tell us why you need vr in this lens? Educate us please.

stormwatch

Would you like to educate me maybe on the topic of videography, and why I would need an 24, 35, 50 and 58 mm with VR? Some of us use cameras for their jobs daily…

neversink

I’m on assignment nearly 2/3 of the year or more and have never had a need for vr on lenses up to 85mm. Just improve your technique. Before the invention of image stabilization no one ever had a need for vr. Can you imagine Cartier- Bresson whining about lack of vr. If you are shooting the 85 onDX then I can see the need for vr, but otherwise… I’m glad vr is on the tele lenses and the 105 macro…. But do I really need it on a 14-24 or…..

stormwatch

Man, look at the TV footage from 70’s for example…it’s full of awful shaking made by the people who tough that they’re holding camera still :-))))) – time goes on and on, but some people want to stay in the stone age of videography.

neversink

Call me Fred Flinstone!

Dog Eared Dave

I use the 85mm f/1.4G for most of my work, often in low light, and lack of VR just doesn’t come into it. Being older I’m not particularly steady, but as would be expected of people using this class of lens, I know what I’m doing.

BroncoBro

I use an 85mm f/1.8 on my D300s and have few problems holding still. I just try to keep the shutter firing at 1/125 or better, but I can go to 1/80 and get acceptable results.

First off thanks for sharing these quick review pictures
I think some comments are shifting toward price/performance but (to me) are starting from a completely wrong assumption.

NOCT nikkors are not built to be sharpest or to have the best bokeh, it is not correct to compare them to the 50 1.8 1.4 or to the 85mm, at least if you do you are missing the point.

NOCT Nikkors are built to correct the sagittal coma flare wide open.

If you start from this assumption you will see that the stars shots look very promising.
I will wait for some more an possibly with the camera mounted on a telescope mount but so far it really looks interesting!

Who needs a lens that corrects sagittal coma flare? Astrophotographers and possibly just a few others.

Nikon knows that this lens will not sell like hot cake, they will just sell a few thousand and still they have to cover production and design costs.
1800$ is right? probably yes considering the low volumes.

But wait… it is made of plastic… so what ? Have you ever complained your Samsung mobile is not all glass/metal as the iPhone?
Probably not because if you buy a Samsung you are looking for other features…

Yes I would personally prefer a metal lens, but if the preformance is there…

Will I buy it right away ? not yet I thik I will wait for more info and maybe be able to test it myself

You’re absolutely right. I don’t get why someone would beat up on the lens’ sharpness, when that is not the goal. Nikons MTF illustrates that right out of the gate. Left is 58mm, Right is 200mm f2

Marc W.

It’s because people “see” sharpness first and then curse coma after they first see it.

Marc W.

It’s because people “see” sharpness first and then curse coma after they first see it.

KnightPhoto

MTFs of exotic telephotos aren’t a good comparison in this case, as telephotos are a different design paradigm than normal focal lengths. According to the MTF, the 58mm is exhibiting high contrast (red line) right out to (18 of 22) towards the corners and resolution (blue line) is decent to 15/22 but with added value that since both the dotted and solid lines track so closely to each other, there is little astigmatism, which I believe predicts great bokeh.

Here’s the Sigma 50 and 35mm for comparison which really in the case of the much praised 35mm don’t look mind shattering by comparison. The 35mm is dropping off after the 10 out of 22 mm meaning it’s stellar capabilities are more central than the 58mm.

I have the Sigma 50 but I don’t love it at f/1.4. At f/2 it renders beautifully but IIRC f/1.4 is a bit of a mess 😉

Rolleiflex

Is it fully corrected? I still see them in the test shot. Not that I have seen a better 50 at this price or below, but I just wonder if this is acceptable enough. If you have to stop down to f/2.8 to get a coma free picture, then what’s the point? I think people into astrophotography might be better off with the Otus for WO shot.

neonspark

no lens fully corrects aberrations. this is not possible. you only handle them as it makes sense for the price point.

Rolleiflex

Well, I didn’t say aberration free lens. You can have a coma free lens system if you can put up with the additional spherical aberration and distortion. It’s all about balancing. I just wonder if this is enough to be touted as highly corrected for sagittal coma.

Aldo

It’s clearly worth $1700 because it has a gold ring…

mikeswitz

Does that mean it’s for wedding photographers?

Aldo

affirmative… a must have.

robert

haha bad Aldo..

Matthew Saville Baldon

Either someone can’t focus on stars, or this lens is the softest ~50mm ever made. I guess I’ll have to test it for myself…

PapaZerg

i want to see this lens shot at INFINITY and then let us see the corners for coma and vignetting. this is what this thing was designed for and not for the portrait enthusiasts and bokeh-masturbators.

personally, if i am still shooting pretty pictures of building at night for LARGE format printing(meters wide for billboards), i would LOVE to have this lens.

currently, I am not doing anything related to this, so i will skip this lens. i believe that this is going to be stunning for what it was intended to do!

frod

robert so clearly badly wants this lens to go with his little prime collection but can’t afford it.

the cognitive dissonance is clear as day, hence why he has to post so much until he can get everyone to “agree” that it’s a poor lens so he can ignore his inner voice.

unfortunately, he’s trying far too hard. someone who was genuinely not interested or merely disappointed would post once and be gone, not attempt to run the entire comments thread.

such a pitiable situation to be in.

J. Dennis Thomas

Of course you know that now you are added to robert’s list of undercover PR secret agents…